A Grave Error
I graduated from Middlebury College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in American literature in 1982. I have always been proud that Middlebury distinguished this discipline from others, such as English and American studies, and have valued that particular perspective in my life and in my career. I am deeply saddened that I will no longer be able to point to this distinction and that American literature will cease to exist as a separate major.
I have written several letters to the administration on this subject and understand that trying to fight this decision is now a moot point. However, I have a seven-year-old son, and I think quite a lot about the future and what it might hold for him. It would be my wish that he could know professors such as John McWilliams and Stephen Donadio, who affected my intellectual development and ultimately my life in such profound ways. It would be my wish that he could be taught how to think, analyze, and love the literature whose roots are inseparable from the very beginnings of this country and which continue to run through the worst and best moments of our collective history.
Our world is fraught with war and strife, fear of difference, and intolerance of other points of view. In my opinion, there has never been a more important time for Americans, particularly students who will one day be leaders in public service and business, to examine themselves through the voices of their writers, poets, and activists.
Change is never easy and not necessarily a bad thing at times. In this case, I think Middlebury has made a grave error. It disappoints me to think of those future students who will never have the same experiences that I did. I don't think that I will ever be able to consider the place in quite the same way again.
Susan N. Fleishman '82
Los Angeles, California
The writer is a senior vice president for corporate communications and public affairs at Universal Studios
Pleased by Merger
I compliment you on your magazine. It is excellent—readable, beautifully edited, excellently illustrated.
The present proposal to combine the English and American literature departments ("To Merge or Not to Merge," spring 2005) interests me very deeply. I taught writing courses at Middlebury, as part of the English department, for 23 years. I have a doctorate from Yale in American studies, with a literature concentration. My dissertation was on James Fenimore Cooper, an early major and seminal American novelist, some of whose characters live today. I was trained to teach American literature in light of art and history contemporaneous to the work being studied. Yet in my 23 years on the Middlebury faculty, I was not allowed to teach even one American literature course. The department was so terrified that it might be swallowed up by the English department that no application by me, or even Old Chapel, could allow me to teach an Am Lit course. Therefore, I am wholly in favor of the combination of the two departments.
John H. Clagett
Middlebury, Vermont
The writer is a professor emeritusof English at Middlebury
Now, Nothing's Special
Thank you for making us aware of the current controversy surrounding the merging of the American literature and English departments ("To Merge or Not to Merge," spring 2005). Your opening sentence poses an interesting question, but unfortunately, not the right question. You ask, "Should Conrad and Cather, Milton and Melville live under a collective roof at Middlebury?" The answer is, of course, they should be understood and appreciated by literature students at the College. But the right question is, can we expect students to understand and appreciate such a vast array of different authors, books, genres, themes, and political and historical contexts in any meaningful way? The answer, I'm afraid, is probably not.
As one of many Am Lit majors who chose Middlebury based on its distinction of offering Am Lit in its own department, I was so grateful to be able to narrow the vast world of literature into a subcategory—American—that I truly loved and wanted to study above all others. Strange as it sounds, students need some sort of focus, and a "wider context" will only make it tougher for students to find the important themes and concepts in American literature. As I'm sure Professor McWilliams has emphasized, it is a body of work that can and should be appreciated on its own terms and merits. This in itself is a massive undertaking. But to then add it to the even vaster realm of English literature will result in a dilution of focus for the student, who already faces a reading list several hundred titles long—in either department.
However, the saddest thing is not that huge reading list—the lists have always been too long, that's nothing new—but that Middlebury is giving up yet another feature that makes it unique. My major was a huge part of why I loved the College. But speaking objectively, there is a compelling intellectual justification for having Am Lit be separated from English, and in my opinion it's a healthy separation worth preserving. Middlebury should be strong enough to stand against challenges "in the national field." Like many alumni, I cringe when changes like this are made. Middlebury's just becoming more and more like everyone else.
Jennifer Normandin Locke '93
Boston, Massachusetts
The Destructive Truth
The title of the article on the proposed elimination of the American literature department, "To Merge or Not to Merge," provides a facile variant on Hamlet's soliloquy while cloaking the destructive truth. A beneficial merger occurs only when two units each give up something in order to create a larger unit better than either of its components. In this instance, however, the English department will give up nothing. American literature, by contrast, will give up its long-standing curriculum—the comprehensive sequence of American texts—required for the major, that has been made available every year for some 80 years to the entire student body. If these ill-considered changes are implemented, English department offerings will be expanded numerically, but the comprehensive, historical study of American literature will most certainly be gutted. Middlebury's future students, whatever their major, will be the losers. Even a major in the new department will be cheated; no one specified American author, and no specified American text will be required for a student to graduate with a major in "English and American literatures."
At a time when America's role in the world has become ever more pivotal, why should Middlebury wish to de-emphasize the study of American literature in order to reduce it to one component of "Anglophone" literature? According to the proposed catalogue copy for the new department, American literature will become but one sub-specialty among equals, including "post-colonial literatures from Africa, the Caribbean, Canada, and Australia." As the study of Australian, Caribbean, and African literatures in English are expanded, so the study of American values and ideals, whether considered separately or internationally, will be greatly reduced. Because resources at Middlebury College are not infinite, choices will have to be made. It is clear that, if the proposal becomes a reality, those choices will be made at the expense of American literature.
At least one factual correction and one revealing oversight must be identified. On the facing page of the spring article, Professor John Elder is quoted as "describing the 9–2 vote in the Department of American Literature and Civilization." In fact, the vote was 7–2–1, with the votes of part-time, untenured faculty and faculty who teach American studies but not American literature being weighted equally with tenured faculty who have taught American literature for decades. Why Professor Elder, who is not a member of the American literature department, has been cited as the authority on the meaning of this vote can only be explained as a stratagem of academic, if not editorial, politics. Furthermore it is surely significant that the four dissenters in Professor Elder's own department have been granted no voice in the magazine's account. The false impression created by the article is that there is only one voice in opposition to the "merger."
John McWilliams
Middlebury, Vermont
The writer is a College professor at Middlebury
Dismayed in Connecticut
I read with dismay the piece entitled "To Merge or Not to Merge" (spring 2005), which purports to explain the circumstances surrounding the proposed merger of the American literature and English departments. A 1982 alumna and Am Lit major, I've been closely following the events surrounding this story for the past year, and I am troubled at the bias your article displays.
Where are the other dissenting voices in this debate? Why do you not make clear that the dissenters in both departments are mostly senior faculty members who are also former chairs of their respective departments? So much is at stake here, but the article speaks lightly and confidently of this proposed "merger" as if it is in fact a true merger rather than the evisceration of one major and enhancement of another.
I found the glib tone of the article to be insulting; it puts a happy, un-complicated face on a serious curricular debacle. Middlebury's American literature department is unique, and many of its alumni can attest to the lasting impact it has had on our lives. I, for one, went on to study American and English literature at the graduate level and teach at the secondary and college levels. After more than 20 years, the systematic study of the American literary tradition continues to inform my reading, my thinking, and my approach to life. The venerable tradition of teaching and learning American literature at Middlebury is the reason many of us chose this college in the first place.
It seems to me that the College is now at a turning point, as it seeks to define itself for the future. Middlebury's reputation has soared in the past several years (which is positive), but I see the potential loss of the American literature department as a sign that Middlebury is losing its sense of self. In explaining the reasons for eliminating the major, American Literature Chair Brett Millier refers to the "national field, which is rapidly moving towards cultural studies." Is Middlebury interested in following trends, or does it have a strong enough sense of the value of its offerings to stand behind them?
If this so-called "merger"—and the events leading up to it—are any indication of the way the College plans to run itself in the future, I will feel a powerful disconnect from an institution that used to feel like home.
Betsy Currier Beacom '82
North Haven, Connecticut
Saddened by the Loss
As an Am Lit major, I am very sad to hear of the plans that are being considered to merge the American literature department with its English counterpart. My decision to apply to Middlebury was because of the independence of this department, its comprehensive and rich curriculum, and unique standing. I seriously doubt we can afford the risk of depriving ourselves of any of these qualities, no matter the academic area.
Patricia Paige-Pfennig '86, M.A. English '90
Wiesbaden, Germany
The Big Sleaze
American literature holds much of our collective memory as a people; we are not Australians; we are for the most part not intellectual inheritors of Caribbean tradition. We acknowledge a debt to the English tradition but are not of that tradition any longer but of our own. Few of us are pompous enough to think of ourselves as "Anglophones." What is being proposed at Middlebury is that we dilute and weaken a program that has for generations served to provide insight into the American character for a fashionable notion of worldliness, invented, it would seem, to serve certain political agendas within the faculty. To reduce the requirements for American literature in either the newly formed Department of American Studies or the merged Department of English/American Literature to "any two" courses and put into its place an emphasis on a category called "Anglophone" literature recalls a period in which a "smorgasbord" approach to curriculum became fashionable on many campuses. The result was disastrous; it weakened the experience of thousands of students and was subsequently abandoned at most colleges. But now, something similar is happening at Middlebury vis à vis American literature: the literary riches of our cultural heritage as Americans may in effect be forfeited to the games of academic politics at Middlebury.
I was an editor in the education department at Life magazine during the revisionist period of the sixties and watched the outcome as ignorance, passion, and innocence took the place of informed thought. We are still suffering the consequences in a period when "spin control" substitutes for truth. Sad to say, it is "spin control" that is currently very much in evidence in the way the demise of the American literature department has been treated at the College. From the outset, there was a great deal of political maneuvering to prevent full discussion of the proposal with the entire College community, including other faculty and the alumni. And the latest article in the College magazine caps a trend that saw those opposed to the "merger" persistently obstructed in their attempts to contact concerned alums while various forms of spin control were put in place.
Nationally, we are in a period of the Big Sell, of political sleaze passing itself off as truth, of agenda politics that threaten to undermine the very fabric of our society. And at Middlebury, in its little political teapot, much the same kind of crafty behavior has surfaced with political agendas replacing clear thinking and half-truths being passed off as truth. As a former trustee, I am very, very, very disappointed in what has been allowed to happen at the College. It is not simply that American literature will end up as a residual program without a core (for that, read back bone) but that this has been permitted by a corrupted process, which in turn signals a general weakening of oversight by the trustees and the administration. The political craft that has brought this sad outcome at Middlebury has been deft but not transparent; every move made thus far has served to add power to the American civilization department, chaired by Brett Millier. She claims, in the article by Matthew Jennings, that she serves the study of "literature" over that of American culture; she serves herself and perhaps others, not self-evident, who will gain power from such changes.
This is admittedly an angry letter. The anger derives in part from rage at the general political scene, but it also derives from my sense that I am watching the Big Sleaze played out at Middlebury, cloaked as something praiseworthy.
Barbara Cummiskey Villet '52
Shushan, New York
Value Subtracted
The American literature department at Middlebury was ahead of its time. What it taught mattered—its focus on our literature as a distinct field for study meant that students were able to interpret who and what we are in an ever-complicated world without losing a perspective honed on the experience of this continent and its peoples. To subsume this unique department into a larger, ill-defined unit risks losing sight of our actual cultural heritage. The proposed requirement of only two courses in American literature will obliterate the careful and comprehensive era-by-era engagement which made the department distinctive. It is "value subtracted" education. It also follows in the footsteps of almost every other university in the country. Why not remain ahead of the pack, excellent in what you do, instead of belatedly following it? And at such a cost?
For the past few decades, literary education has evolved into a carousel of disparate theoretical and ideological perspectives. Hidden under the machine is the body of real books by real authors that support it. There is not much evidence nationally that undergraduates, in particular, are thriving in the current ethos of literary study, which seems geared to producing a mandarin elite instead of informed citizens. This proposed merger has all the feel of a professional "coup" rather than true concern for
students.
I am an example of what might be lost. I feel that the foundation of my career as a writer and critic is the education I received in American literature at Middlebury. I'm reminded of what I learned in 1963 in Howard Munford's ['34] seminal class: "That things go round and again go round." I urge Middlebury to retain its intellectual integrity.
Judith Kitchen '63
Port Townsend, Washington
The writer is codirector of the Rainier Writing Workshop at Pacific Lutheran University and the author of The House on Eccles Road and other books
Anglophoney Department
When he conducted the interview with John McWilliams that figures in the College Street report titled (misleadingly) "To Merge or Not to Merge?" (spring 2005), Matthew Jennings, editor of the magazine and author of that unsigned account, gave his assurance—repeated later—that he would also be speaking with me about the fate of American literature at Middlebury. Since Mr. Jennings failed to do so and has also chosen not to identify me, the other senior member of the Department of American Literature and Civilization, as "one of the two dissenters," I want to make sure that members of the College's extended community are aware of my vehement opposition to the ill-conceived and intellectually indefensible move to terminate the major and eviscerate the comprehensive curriculum in American literature. As attentive readers of this College Street piece might surmise, from the outset the advocates of termination have been unable to come up with any coherent argument—only disconnected remarks and sanctimonious generalities that do not address the specific and highly concrete consequences of this curricular assault. In addition, in interpreting the votes reported, readers also need to know—for a start—that of the senior faculty members in both English and American literature who are opposed to this foolish and destructive plan, four have served for years as chairs of their respective departments. (I myself served for five or six years as chair of American Literature and Civilization, and also, uniquely, for five years as chair of the Department of English.)
A bit of necessary history: In the fall of 2003, without acknowledging prior discussions of which members of the department were unaware, the chair of American Literature and Civilization suddenly proposed consideration of a possible new joint major in English and American literature, indicating that serious exploration of this possibility would be likely to take many months. Almost instantly, the possibility of a joint major was taken off the table and replaced by the current and far more radical plan to terminate the American literature major and create a new American studies department; this plan was then rushed to a vote, and presented to the English department as the basis for a realignment that required no change whatsoever in the structure of that department or of the requirements for the major in English.
There is much to be said about the deplorable and dishonest process that has led to the current situation, which to my mind represents a crossroads in the history of the College and a crisis in the way significant academic business is conducted here. At this point the magazine report amounts to nothing more than a highly selective piece of marketing for a change that will result in Middlebury's giving up one of its most distinctive intellectual assets in favor of an increased arbitrariness and incoherence in the College's English and American literature offerings as a whole. Despite all the disingenuous and dodgy rhetoric, the principal result of this so-called "merger" would be the devastating elimination of the possibility of serious, sustained, and systematic study of American literature from the colonial period to the present. Caveat emptor—buyer beware! Once you have fallen for this sales pitch and bought the shoddy new "Anglophone" product now being advertised, I'm afraid you will find that the College maintains no Complaint Department to which you might effectively convey your sense of outrage later, when you've discovered exactly what it is that you've been sold.
Stephen Donadio
Middlebury, Vermont
The writer is the Fulton Professor of American Literature at Middlebury
Midd Can Do Better
Regarding the article "To Merge or Not to Merge" in the spring 2005 issue: As I wrote President Liebowitz on December 24, 2004, "The refusal by the majority [of the Department of American Literature and Civilization] to allow the minority access to the database of contact information for American Literature and Civilization alumni outrages me. The College has pioneered in offering a major in an important field of study. That Middlebury is unique in this is a matter of pride, not denigration."
I stop here, preferring to let other readers, disaffected or otherwise, fill the letters column in this issue.
Malcolm Freiberg '41
Belmont, Massachusetts
War Protest
Regarding the Middlebury Magazine article "Ask, Do Tell" in the spring 2005 issue: Regardless of political issues, it is irresponsible of the College to encourage disrespect of our military personnel, especially when they are engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Encourage independent thinking in the voting booth and leave the Marines alone.
Thomas Shiverick '56
Vero Beach, Florida
Discrimination Recrimination
Your article ("Ask, Do Tell," spring 2005) about strengthening the College's enforcement of its nondiscrimination policy inaccurately reported the outcome of the faculty's deliberations. The faculty voted 62 to 26 (with four abstentions) to recommend eliminating the provision permitting employers who discriminate in hiring to recruit on campus if they first explain their employment practices in an open meeting. Middlebury Magazine mistakenly reported that there were 48 votes against the resolution. It's important to record that more than two-thirds of the faculty present voted for eliminating the controversial provision. This was a very decisive vote for equal rights.
Michael Olinick
Middlebury, Vermont
The writer is the Baldwin Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Middlebury
Leave the Marine Alone
As an alumnus of Middlebury and the United States Marine Corps and being very proud of and fortunate to have had both of these experiences, I am concerned about the article ("Ask, Do Tell") that appeared in the spring issue of Middlebury Magazine. Our country is at war, and a young Marine Corps officer serving his country and doing his assigned duty of visiting the College to see which students may be interested in serving in the military is harassed. (I might add that in 1954, seven Middlebury students were commissioned as officers in the Marine Corps during our graduation ceremony by a senior Marine officer.) For students to protest and try to embarrass a Marine Corps officer doing his assigned duty for our government in a time of war is un-acceptable.
If these young students—who have not served their country—have a real problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, they should contact the previous administration who put this law into effect.
The real concern that several of my Middlebury friends and I have with this situation is the fact that the College, its leadership, and the editorial staff of Middlebury Magazine had the audacity to promote this event with photographs. You must have other subject matters to consider and include in the magazine without embarrassing our servicemen.
I have worked for Middlebury for many years—interviewing potential candidates in major cities—and have always financially supported my alma mater. It is my hope that Middlebury will review its policy relating to the above.
Richard L. Bourbeau '54
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
Demand Full Disclosure
The reason for my letter is the article in the spring 2005 issue—"Ask, Do Tell" —about military recruiting on campus.
In addition to the hypocrisy of the military on the issue of gays in the armed services, there is the morally repugnant policy of misinforming those who sign up to serve our country. If the College's policy is to allow recruiters on campus, then I believe Middlebury is morally obligated to provide these same students with accurate information about the consequences of military service, such as what is outlined in a pamphlet recently published by the American Friends Service Committee and endorsed by Veterans for Peace.
As the daughter of a World War II vet, I understand how important it is to serve our country in its hour of need. But as the sister and wife of Vietnam veterans,
I also know our government can misuse its power and its citizens.
Dorothy Blanchette P'04
Falmouth, Maine
Campus Catalysts
I applaud Middlebury's wide-ranging strategic reassessment and its inclusion of the entire Middlebury community in the process—from students, faculty, and staff to alumni/ae and friends of the College. I wish the other educational institutions with which I have been affiliated would consider equivalent self-assessments.
I also would like to respond to a couple of concerns President Liebowitz raised in his spring 2005 magazine column "Engaging Intellect: Building a Stronger Intellectual Community at Middlebury." The president very rightly mentions the difficulties of "creat[ing] a vigorous on-campus intellectual community" when faculty are faced with that eternal promotion bugaboo—"publish or perish." In the process, their work becomes skewed "toward the narrow and specific, with less attention to the broad and general." The result, he writes, "is the stifling of discussion among colleagues across disciplines, and with the wider community at large."
Clearly, some publication, some contribution to original research, must be expected of faculty in higher education. But may I suggest that as the College seeks to nourish the overall intellectual environment of Middlebury, it consider each faculty member's role as an intellectual catalyst in the on-campus student community as at least one of the parameters for tenure? Does each faculty member, for example, on occasion (or on a regular basis) host a free-wheeling lunch discussion group in his discipline? Does he offer an informal course-related brainstorming evening workshop? Does he mentor students on how to publish opinion pieces related to their discipline in local or national newspapers, or on how they can submit analytical essays to relevant journals and magazines (ranging perhaps from English Journal to Harper'sor Orion or Military History)? Such activities would increase student intellectual involvement and curiosity, validating particular pieces of strong work they may have submitted in their courses. These are just a few ideas; I'm sure the planning committee could think of more. Such
sessions would also validate faculty members' own research and prove, I should think, highly stimulating to them as well.Making such catalytic activities an official part of the professional assessment/promotion process would result in faculty members interacting more frequently and informally with students and would generate on-campus intellectual excitement and curiosity. How this would be measured is, of course, a key question—one that the planning committee could explore. Anonymous student surveys? Forms submitted by faculty? Others? I would recommend, however, that any annual "assessing body" include at least some student representation.
Lee Gaillard, M.A. English '70
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Lighten the Tone
As an alumnus family, residents of Cornwall, and members in good stead of the Middlebury community, we feel compelled to respond to Michael Katz's letter ("Habitat or Houses," spring 2005) regarding the advertisement of lots in the Foote Farm development. We were saddened and angered by what seemed to be a thinly veiled threat in the conclusion of his letter. He writes: "I would like to apprise any Middlebury alums who buy into this development that they will be entering a controversial situation and may not be welcomed wholeheartedly by all members of the local community." We, too, have concerns about the Foote Farm development, but find Mr. Katz's letter unacceptably hostile and not at all representative of our community.
There are a number of clearly defined and appropriate channels at the local and state levels that Mr. Katz can avail himself of to oppose this development. If his efforts fail, it will be because the developers have succeeded in meeting local zoning regulations, the requests of town planners and Act 250 rules. If Mr. Katz is still unhappy, we suggest he devote his energies to changing the town plan and its zoning regulations. Threatening potential buyers with being unwelcome is mean-spirited and vindictive—behavior unbecoming of a member of the College faculty and our small community.
Becky and Chris Dayton '87
Cornwall, Vermont
Look to Cape Cod
I was interested to read the letter to the editor from Professor Katz regarding the proposed development of the Foote Farm adjacent to his property in Cornwall ("Habitat or Houses?" spring 2005).In arguing against the creation of home sites on this property, Professor Katz cites landscape features and diverse wildlife species whose existence will likely be compromised if the pending development plans are approved.
As an ecologist and conservation biologist, I find Professor Katz's perspective particularly frustrating. No doubt many similar habitats existed on his property prior to its development. I hope and assume he sleeps peacefully at night in spite of this fact. Conservation issues facing Vermont and the rest of New England cannot simply be about stopping particular development projects in those places where local groups have the clout to win arguments, often on specious ecological foundations. It can and must be about building conservation planning into the process of owning, selling, buying, and converting properties and the landscapes they contain. We can take valuable lessons from places like Cape Cod, Nantucket, and Martha's Vineyard where conservation concerns have led citizens to approve conveyance taxes that fund proactive, regional conservation planning done on firm scientific grounds. This approach has been remarkably successful in achieving conservation goals while simultaneously moving land conservation away from the corrosive drawbridge politics that characterize its practice today.
In that vein, Professor Katz's veiled suggestion that a community will castigate people for wanting what they already enjoy is especially unattractive and antithetical to the true goals of conservation.
David Skelly '87
New Haven, Connecticut
The writer is a professor of ecology at Yale University
Private Concerns
My husband and I have just read with great interest the article about Kateri Carmola in the spring 2005 issue of Middlebury Magazine ("The Art of War"). We congratulate Middlebury on having someone of her experience and concerns as a member of the faculty.
Patricia Novak, M.A. Spanish '57
Hinesburg, Vermont
Well on Our Way
Ed Weissman '65 wrote a nice article ("A Moment in Time," spring 2005) about two days he spent in Selma, Alabama. However, he missed the real story of Alabama, which I'm afraid leaves most of your readers with a misunderstanding of the state.
I can speak from experience because I have lived here almost 50 years and have seen the changes in this state, both good and bad. When I arrived in Huntsville in 1956, I wondered what I had gotten in to. Traveling from Oklahoma, I was shocked when I hit the state: shacks along the road with refrigerators on the front porch; Huntsville was a surprise—a town of some 20,000 steeped in 19th-century history but determined to progress.
The year 1965 featured strife in south Alabama but relative calm in the north. Oh, we had a sit-in at the local Kmart restaurant, but we also had a group of leaders who said we will change peacefully. The local schools were integrated with little fanfare. We begged George Wallace to keep the troops home, but he refused. But the next day, life went on with integration complete.
My job at the arsenal was to help integrate civilian personnel. We recruited at the local African American college and brought in some fine recruits. I am proud of the plaque on my wall in the recognition of the outstanding students we recruited.
In my retirement, I look back on what has been accomplished in my lifetime and draw pride in my adopted state and city. I look to a city of almost 200,000 with progress on every side. We have the distinction of being home to the small businessman of the year, awarded by President Bush to one of our leading African American businessmen. All city boards have African Americans, as does the city council and school.
We have a highly regarded symphony, a world-class art museum, and a botanical garden that is attempting to build the largest butterfly cage in the country (our butterflies are already nationally famous).
We still have not completely overcome 1965, but we are well on the way. I have found a home, and I am proud of my city and state, warts and all, and I have no desire to go back to Massachusetts. I don't think I'd fit in any more.
Graham Shovelton '48
Huntsville, Alabama
In Appreciation
We wish to express our deepest gratitude to John Hanson for his years of dedication and service to Middlebury College. John is retiring this summer after 15 years of service, most of which were spent as the director of admissions. During this time, John has served tirelessly to advance the mission of the College by helping to create a student body of diverse, talented, and intellectually curious young people from around the world. The classes that have entered Middlebury under John's leadership have been some of the most qualified and impressive in its history. We believe that his work has made the College a stronger institution and that his efforts have contributed in a significant way to sustaining and promoting the reputation of Middlebury as one of the best liberal arts colleges in the country.
Those who matriculate at Middlebury become a permanent part of the College—they are part of its immediate existence for a short time, part of its history for a much longer time, and, perhaps most importantly, a crucial part of its future. John and his staff deserve the thanks of a grateful College community. We are continually inspired by John's gracious and decent nature, and we are certain that his presence in a formal role at the College will be sorely missed. We are grateful for his friendship, and we feel that we are better people for having known him over the years. We wish John and his wonderful wife, Ann, the very best as he retires, and we offer our most sincere thanks for his years of commitment and work on behalf of our beloved alma mater.
Trystan '95 and Brendan O'Leary '94
Walpole, Massachusetts
Letters Policy
Letters addressing topics discussed in the magazine are given priority, though they may be edited for brevity or clarity. On any given subject we will print letters that address that subject, and then in the next issue, letters that respond to the first letters. After that, we will move on to new subjects. Send letters to:
Middlebury Magazine
Meeker House
Middlebury College
Middlebury, VT 05753.
E-mail: middmag@middlebury.edu.